Roku 3 review: A set-top box to trump all other set-top boxes

With over 750 channels available and a brand new interface, what's not to love?

Roku is no stranger to set-top boxes—we’d even go so far as to say that the company has managed to set the standard for what these little streaming devices should offer. It's the content partnerships that have made the devices so successful—consumers have a great deal of choice when it comes to streaming, something that the Apple TV and even the WDTV Play are still catching up on.

To be fair, Roku, Apple, and Western Digital all offer slightly different things. Roku is especially made for those who want to stream a variety of content from third-parties, while the other two act more as a mediator for users to play content they already own while still having access to some of the more widely used third parties. Regardless, the Roku has been successful in its model, and the Roku 3 continues in the company's tradition of delivering an affordable, feature-filled streaming device.

New look, same great offerings

The Roku 3, available now for $99.99, calls itself the “most powerful, responsive streaming box” that Roku has ever built. It features an ARM-based processor and other components all wrapped inside a shiny, hockey-puck shaped chassis. At 3.5 × 3.5 × 1 inches, it’s a bit smaller than the second- and third-generation Apple TV and Western Digital's Play set-top box. It also feels a bit like a paperweight, but that helps keep the puck from sliding around in your entertainment center.

The Roku 3 features a USB port on the side...

And an Ethernet and HDMI port in the back, as well as a microSD slot.

It also comes with a remote and ear buds that can plug in to the remote.

On the back, the Roku 3 features an Ethernet port, HDMI port, microSD slot, and power plug. It's 802.11 a/b/g/n compatible, with WEP, WPA, and WPA2 support. On the side, there’s a handy slot for a flash drive or portable hard drive. The Roku 3 no longer features any RCA outputs as past iterations have, so users with older televisions will want to check out the older versions of the Roku.

The Roku 3's new interface is smooth and fluid, not to mention easy to use.

The Roku’s interface underwent a major overhaul, and it no longer features the static, flip-through icon carousel of older iterations. Users can see more channels at a glance and change the background theme of the interface, and there is a nice transition effect while perusing through menus. Overall, the new interface is more user friendly than older versions of the Roku, as menus are easier to navigate through. Still, some of the "channels" haven’t evolved along with Roku and are still sporting dated interfaces.

The Roku 3 also allows users to search for content across different services. Say you’re aching to watch the BBC’s Sherlock: simply type the name into the search option on the Home page and Roku will retrieve the different services that are streaming it—a helpful option for users who might have subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and even Amazon Instant Video but aren't sure which service has the most episodes to offer. It’s only a shame that there's no voice control like on the Xbox via the Kinect, because the keyboard input via the remote is a bit slow.

Roku will also save recent searches.

You can search for what you want to watch by title and Roku will show where it's streaming.

The new interface is currently exclusive to the Roku 3, but the company has said that it will push out the update to its latest generation of Roku boxes at the end of April.

The remote

The Roku 3 remote has a headphone jack that lets you listen to your content without disturbing others around you.

The Roku remote is a notable hardware update itself. It hooks up to the Roku 3 via Wi-Fi Direct, so you don't have to point it at the box to change the channel. It also features a headphone jack and volume buttons, so you can listen to a movie or music without disrupting others in the room. You could probably use the Roku remote as a music player around the house, too, if your place is small enough. It doesn't have the greatest range, however—I left the Roku 3 plugged into the television on the second floor of my house while it was streaming Spotify, but it began to break up when I took the remote downstairs.

Flip the remote over to use it as a game controller.

The remote has Wii-like motion sensing features, though Roku's game offerings are slim pickings, and the only game that really made use of the motion sensing was Angry Birds Space. I would have also preferred to have rubber the buttons and OK button surrounded by the directional pad rather than right below it. The solid buttons feel very different from other remotes, and it was a bit of an adjustment trying to browse left and right with the new plastic directional buttons.

Playback

Roku features a variety of channels available for download.

Roku has managed to become a hub for some of the most widely used streaming services—about 750 and counting. Like a television, Roku offers channels that are essentially apps that link to a streaming URL. Any channel you download or subscribe to is linked to your Roku account so that it's available when you move devices. Some of the major players include Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, Amazon Instant Video, Amazon Cloud Player, Spotify, and Pandora. It also offers the live TV application from Time Warner Cable. Those interested in cooking can tune in to All Recipes and Recipe.TV, and those looking for educational content can watch TEDTalks and NASA TV. There’s programming for children via the Disney app, and sports fans can watch MLB.TV and purchase a premium subscription to watch their favorite teams play. If you’re especially curious or new to Roku, the company offers a complete listing of its available channels online.

The only major service that Roku doesn't offer is an official YouTube channel, apparently a years-old issue that does not yet have a resolution. There are a couple workarounds to this, however. Adding private channels like Twonky to beam YouTube content from your Android or iOS device to the Roku 3 seems to work fine.

The Roku 3 also allows users to stream their own content. With a flash drive or portable hard drive, users can play back digital media files including MP4, MKV, AAC, MP3, JPEG, and PNG files, though an application is required for this functionality to work. It does not support AVI, nor does it support DLNA playback, but users can set up a slight workaround by connecting to an existing Plex Media Server with the app available in the Roku channel store. You can also use the microSD card to sync Roku channels that are over 50MB, though it will have to be formatted before you can use it.

The app

The Roku app—available for iOS and Android—is probably my favorite thing about this set-top box. As an Android user, I feel like I don't always get first pick of the litter when it comes to app interfaces and features. Compared to the WDTV Android app for its streaming devices, the Roku app is a real winner. It’s easy to use, immediately responsive, and the keyboard works properly within other applications. It displays all of your downloaded channels at a glance, allows you to launch a channel by speaking its name, downloads other apps, and pushes content from your smartphone to the Roku itself, though it only supports photos and music.

Enlarge/ Get an at-a-glance view at your apps and launch them from here.

Enlarge/ Cycle through the different Roku devices linked to your account.

Enlarge/ The Roku app features all the same controls as the physical remote.

Should you get it?

If you happen to have a first-generation Roku in the house, you will definitely want to consider passing that off to another family member—or shoving it in another room—and securing one of these. If you've just recently adopted a Roku into your home, don't fret—you'll get the new user interface soon enough. However, the Roku 3 feels faster than its predecessors rather than feeling like an old dog with new tricks, as some of the older models sometimes did. While previous hardware updates felt incremental, the Roku 3 is a monumental leap forward for the company. It’s still a shame that the Roku 3 has such limited options for locally stored files, though; users with a hoard of content ready to be watched may want to consider the WDTV Play for this reason alone, despite its slim app offerings. Apple users and those who are linked to the Apple ecosystem may be more inclined to stick with the Apple TV, but they should at least consider the Roku 3 as a TV companion for “other rooms.”

Those looking to ditch cable and go full streaming should consider the Roku 3 as a great way to do just that. All of the available channels and options to pay for premium content ensure that you’ll get that same television experience without having to pay for all those channels you don’t want, and with the Roku 3's affordability, you can easily buy one for every television.

Good

A ridiculously large library of channels available for download (some are free and some require subscriptions)

New interface is fast, intuitive

Search feature allows users to peruse content on various services at once

Can listen to content via headphones for quieter viewing or listening to music

Bad

Playback is limited to very specific files

Ugly

Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network

My Samsung TV supports MKV but it does not support 10p (yes I know CPU limitations might be the cause). Nor does it support chapter stops, embedded subtitles (subtitles must be ripped out to a separate file, it also treats them as closed captions and they look like crap). Because of this it is basically useless.

It is nice when devices like this finally support containers that everyone is using. But its maddening when the support is half assed. Yes going to Plex can solve this but I would rather not have to run my NAS *AND* a machine to transcode everything. My Synology supports plex and transcoding but its less than perfect.

I guess I need to stop waiting for a perfect little box like this and just build that HTPC I keep putting off and run XBMC.

Edit: Found and app called roksbox that can access files through a standard web server. So, it looks like you can seet up a NAS box with http access to the media files and have it streamed to Roku. Hmmm.. Might give this a try. My Linux server with Mediatomb+PS3 is getting harder to manage.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

My Samsung TV supports MKV but it does not support 10p (yes I know CPU limitations might be the cause). Nor does it support chapter stops, embedded subtitles (subtitles must be ripped out to a separate file, it also treats them as closed captions and they look like crap). Because of this it is basically useless.

It is nice when devices like this finally support containers that everyone is using. But its maddening when the support is half assed. Yes going to Plex can solve this but I would rather not have to run my NAS *AND* a machine to transcode everything. My Synology supports plex and transcoding but its less than perfect.

I guess I need to stop waiting for a perfect little box like this and just build that HTPC I keep putting off and run XBMC.

This is ultimately the most flexible option. There's nothing you can't play.

However, if you have multiple rooms, I've had excellent results with an HTPC in the living room running lots of things but mainly Plex server, and Roku with the Plex app elsewhere in the house.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

DLNA has always worked flawlessly for me. Granted, I don't use transcoding. Instead, the playback devices themselves perform the playback. The DLNA server is merely serving files. Transcoding is a sloppy solution for bad quality playback devices. The best solution is to simply use players that can actually play what you need to play.

Edit: Currently I use an LG blu-ray player in my home theater. It can play 1080p mkv with dts or dd+ sound at native framerate.

@chocoruacal It's a legitimate question; I had to re-scan the article after reading it to make sure I didn't miss that particular bit of info. But no, the price isn't in the article, and I don't think I should have to do a search to find out. It's a review of a piece of hardware, and it should include price.

My Samsung TV supports MKV but it does not support 10p (yes I know CPU limitations might be the cause). Nor does it support chapter stops, embedded subtitles (subtitles must be ripped out to a separate file, it also treats them as closed captions and they look like crap). Because of this it is basically useless.

It is nice when devices like this finally support containers that everyone is using. But its maddening when the support is half assed. Yes going to Plex can solve this but I would rather not have to run my NAS *AND* a machine to transcode everything. My Synology supports plex and transcoding but its less than perfect.

I guess I need to stop waiting for a perfect little box like this and just build that HTPC I keep putting off and run XBMC.

You're not going to have much luck expecting boxes like this to have broad MKV support natively out of the box. Plex is definitely the answer. It doesn't really make sense to complain about running a machine to run Plex server, but then turn around and say the solution is to build another PC that will also run all the time. The costs you put into that HTPC will far outweigh the extra electricity you pay by leaving an existing PC on to run Plex.

There is no point to an HTPC nowadays. If you want to play games in the living room, you buy a console. If you want to record TV, it will probably take at least 3 years of saved DVR fees to recoup the HTPC cost, after which point you will probably be putting more money into the HTPC anyway. And for video streaming and everything else, it just makes more sense to use a $99 box like this or Google TV.

I realize I can google to find the price. I was more pointing out that I consider mentioning the price of a product is pretty much a necessity for a review and it's missing here. Florence even mentions the benefits you receive from the price (affordability) without mentioning the price - I thought that was pretty odd.

It's not a huge deal, just a missing piece in an otherwise well-rounded (albeit short) review.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

DLNA has always worked flawlessly for me. Granted, I don't use transcoding. Instead, the playback devices themselves perform the playback. The DLNA server is merely serving files. Transcoding is a sloppy solution for bad quality playback devices. The best solution is to simply use players that can actually play what you need to play.

Edit: Currently I use an LG blu-ray player in my home theater. It can play 1080p mkv with dts or dd+ sound at native framerate.

How is FF and rewind? That's one of my major gripes with DLNA, it usually doesn't support 2x, 4x, 8x, etc. FF. With my TV the only thing I can do is FF/rewind in very small discrete chunks.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

While I agree with you about Plex, probably one of the best apps out there for this sort of thing, it in itself is not without it's flaws. But that aside, seriously, why not also include DLNA when most streaming media devices being put out nowadays do? Having both just means you have options, and options are always good.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

DLNA has always worked flawlessly for me. Granted, I don't use transcoding. Instead, the playback devices themselves perform the playback. The DLNA server is merely serving files. Transcoding is a sloppy solution for bad quality playback devices. The best solution is to simply use players that can actually play what you need to play.

Edit: Currently I use an LG blu-ray player in my home theater. It can play 1080p mkv with dts or dd+ sound at native framerate.

How is FF and rewind? That's one of my major gripes with DLNA, it usually doesn't support 2x, 4x, 8x, etc. FF. With my TV the only thing I can do is FF/rewind in very small discrete chunks.

Admittedly, FF and rew don't always work responsively. But I think this is a factor of playback horsepower, not the DLNA server. Playback from a USB stick is no different on my devices. For me this isn't much of an issue because I don't jump around programs enough for it to be an issue. For the occasional rewind to catch a missed line or if I forgot to pause while flipping burgers, the performance is acceptable. It is really only things like a 19GB mkv that make ff and rew annoying. Even then, you can go forward and back, but there can be a couple second lag in response to button presses. In those instances, I tend to jump forward or backward via the timeline bar rather than the multispeed ff or rew options.

With all that said, for people looking for hassle free playback of pretty much any mkv from a dlna server, the LG players are an excellent option. Where they come up short is in the 3rd party streaming that the roku excels at.

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

DLNA has always worked flawlessly for me. Granted, I don't use transcoding. Instead, the playback devices themselves perform the playback. The DLNA server is merely serving files. Transcoding is a sloppy solution for bad quality playback devices. The best solution is to simply use players that can actually play what you need to play.

Edit: Currently I use an LG blu-ray player in my home theater. It can play 1080p mkv with dts or dd+ sound at native framerate.

I wouldn't say it's worked flawlessly for me, but no less so than any other method. But I prefer it for the reasons you stated. No transcoding, it's just an easy method to serve up home content. If you have the devices that support playback for that particular media format that is (WD Live TV FTW).

I am very jealous. I've had no luck, ever. Maybe it's time to upgrade, but at the moment a laptop and a 3m (9ft) HDMI cable are the best result for me. Or is it my Yamaha receiver,

Roku, like the Apple TV is, deliberately avoiding letting people play files on their own network. Makes sense for Apple, they make money from selling streaming video, Roku, not so sure, I assume they make money from deals with some channel providers. Anyone know if that's true?

Long shot but I'll ask anyway - is it possible to attach an external optical drive via USB & play CD/DVD/Blu-ray content?

If so I'm in love and need one. If not that's a shame. My PS3 is currently serving as a ridiculously overpowered Blu-ray player & Netflix box for my parents. This sounds like it'd be a great replacement, but we're not willing to drop disc-based media entirely at this point.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

While I agree with you about Plex, probably one of the best apps out there for this sort of thing, it in itself is not without it's flaws. But that aside, seriously, why not also include DLNA when most streaming media devices being put out nowadays do? Having both just means you have options, and options are always good.

Yeah, for anyone new to a Roku and are interested in steaming local content from another computer/server then definitely look into the Plex app. It has worked great for me for a few months now. All of the files play flawlessly. Occasionally a video will show problems when first started, but restarting it usually works. Also, I have not gotten subtitles to work (they come out as gibberish symbols). But the metadata is displayed just fine in the Plex app. You also get the cool features such as queuing up the next episode automatically and syncing the queue across Plex devices.

I have had the Roku since it came on the Market, and have always considered the little box one of the best 100 bucks I evern spent. My Roku 1 has run almost flawlessly for all those years with nothing but an occasional dusting and a new wall-wart.

Local content can be streamed by multiple applications available for the Roku, Roksbox, Chaneru, MyMedia, Plex, the list goes on. The solutions are all a little kuldgey. Plex is by far the most polished I have seen (it also has a subscription price model for additional support).

I could probably get all that and more with Raspberry Pi with an XBMC build for about half the price of the current Roku 3. However that saves me only 35-50 bucks against the few hours it would take to put together.

The thing that sets the Roku apart from the competition is the company itself.1. You buy the box, and that is it. Roku never comes back to you for a subscription or an update or whatever.2. Support is fantastic, the Roku team is active on social media channels with updates about various problems (can't watch Netflix on your Roku Frdiay night, the FB updates will tell you why. They will accept blame if there is an issue on their part). More support is available on the Roku forums if you want to ask there. Updates to the system are frequent and work pretty seamlessly (there have been a few hiccups over the years).3. The platform is open. You can download the dev kit right from the website, and start coding your own channel immediately. Anybody can play. There is a channel out there for almost any interest. You want to focus on Jazz Vibraphone performance and lessons, it's out there. Channels exist inside the Roku store and outside the Roku store (Roku chooses not to promote channels dedicated to less socially acceptable content, but they are not locked out of the ecosystem).

"Doesn’t support DLNA, despite the fact that it hooks into a home network"

Hm, not good. You would think by now, as long as the Roku series have been out and being an established platform, that their newest iteration would support DLNA.

Unfortunately, the experience provided by DLNA is inconsistent and inflexible. While I understand it works in a narrow set of circumstances, in practice, it's far from effective as a way to throw media around the house. Metadata support is poor, and the lack of well-supported transcoding means video won't always work… and it's difficult to predict whether it will or it won't.

Plex, on the other hand, does an excellent job of supporting rich metadata and transcoding, in addition to providing streaming when you're away from home. I don't much care for its web-centric desktop UI, but on mobile devices and with Roku, it's as good as it gets.

DLNA has always worked flawlessly for me. Granted, I don't use transcoding. Instead, the playback devices themselves perform the playback. The DLNA server is merely serving files. Transcoding is a sloppy solution for bad quality playback devices. The best solution is to simply use players that can actually play what you need to play.

Edit: Currently I use an LG blu-ray player in my home theater. It can play 1080p mkv with dts or dd+ sound at native framerate.

I also use an LG deck, a BP-220, which I found to have some of the most extensive capability in its price range. (One place had refurbs for $35 yesterday.) But I still have lots of files it won't play right or at all.

I really want something that implements the capability of VLC on a $150 or less box with an interface my mother and sister can handle. For the moment there is still no substitute for an HTPC if I want everything to just work.

So all this begs the question, just how long will we have to wait for a device that doesn't suck in one way or another? Currently the only solution is to either spend time and money on a (relatively) complicated htpc setup, or to use multiple devices. For me, I went with two roughly $100 devices. One to play any file from my LAN and the other for airplay support. 3rd party playback is mixed between the two and still not that great.

The technology is ready and cheap. It's just other market dynamics that are artificially limiting these devices. Either content licensing isn't available at a reasonable price or the manufacturers feel that they can make more money by artificially limiting functionality. It is a shame really. Some day we'll have playback devices that don't suck. But today we're left high and dry, cobbling together a solution the best we can.

Edit: Found and app called roksbox that can access files through a standard web server. So, it looks like you can seet up a NAS box with http access to the media files and have it streamed to Roku. Hmmm.. Might give this a try. My Linux server with Mediatomb+PS3 is getting harder to manage.

I had problems getting my Roku 2 HD box to play mp4 files larger than 800-ish megs in size on that app. So test it out first. It is also a paid app, which also turned me off to it.

I am very jealous. I've had no luck, ever. Maybe it's time to upgrade, but at the moment a laptop and a 3m (9ft) HDMI cable are the best result for me. Or is it my Yamaha receiver,

Roku, like the Apple TV is, deliberately avoiding letting people play files on their own network. Makes sense for Apple, they make money from selling streaming video, Roku, not so sure, I assume they make money from deals with some channel providers. Anyone know if that's true?

The Roku box runs on a Linux kernel and so I think there are driver issues between the DLNA standards and what the Linux/Roku can support.

I guess I need to stop waiting for a perfect little box like this and just build that HTPC I keep putting off and run XBMC.

This is what I did, except that I use Plex instead of XBMC. I was quite enamored with my Boxee as it had FANTASTIC local streaming support (even being able to locally stream an .ISO file over the network) but between its buggy software and the fact that Boxee basically left it out to pasture less than a year after I bought it made me finally bite the bullet and build an HTPC.

I've had about 4 months so far and it's been insanely fantastic having all of the CPU/GPU power I need as well as the nigh limitless codec support from using a full desktop OS.

I think I built mine for like 300 dollars ( but you could spend less by getting a less expensive case than what I used) and trust me, regardless of how little or much you spend on yours, it's simply well worth it having that kind of freedom and extensibility. I even streamed some Sabres games on the TV by maximizing the browser window and I got around the local blackout restrictions by installing OpenVPN on the machine. So worth it.

I am very jealous. I've had no luck, ever. Maybe it's time to upgrade, but at the moment a laptop and a 3m (9ft) HDMI cable are the best result for me. Or is it my Yamaha receiver,

Roku, like the Apple TV is, deliberately avoiding letting people play files on their own network. Makes sense for Apple, they make money from selling streaming video, Roku, not so sure, I assume they make money from deals with some channel providers. Anyone know if that's true?

The Roku box runs on a Linux kernel and so I think there are driver issues between the DLNA standards and what the Linux/Roku can support.

What do you mean by that? I wouldn't think kernels or drivers have anything to do with dlna functionality. Even if they did have anything to do with dlna, there are plenty of fully functional linux based dlna devices.

Just a quick note about the interface on other channels: Roku has yet to release the API to their third party developers so no one can take advantage of the interface unless Roku had invited them to a private beta or something along those lines.

As for the MKV support, Roku still has not fixed their bug to allow proper processing of it if I recall correctly. However, Plex on a media center in your house can stream to the Roku and transcode the MKV files for you on the fly. It's by far the best solution I've found but your mileage may vary.

I mean i guess if you want a bunch of tiny single use devices go ahead., but the HTPC route always made the most sense for expand ability and multi-use. Even without a NAS, everyone already has a TV and Home Network+Computer. Why drop 100-200 on a single use device when you can spend 300-400 on a fully functional computer that encompasses all those needs and more and will last longer. At that point the only issue is UI control, at which point you have even more choices. PS3 controller, Xbox Controller. Tablet Controller. KB&m. Why bother with a crappy pre-form remote?

Florence Ion / Florence was a former Reviews Editor at Ars, with a focus on Android, gadgets, and essential gear. She received a degree in journalism from San Francisco State University and lives in the Bay Area.